Related videos:
The economist Joel Ernesto Marill, a specialist in Economic Policies at the Ministry of Economy and Planning (MEP), joined the regime's whisper on social media to question the investigation by the Miami Herald that revealed the existence of 18 billion dollars in current assets controlled by the military conglomerate GAESA.
In an extensive post on Facebook, Marill stated that he does not know if the American newspaper had access to actual financial statements, but immediately launched a series of arguments to cast doubt on the veracity of the data.
The official stated that the figures "show many signs of significant manipulation" and supported his thesis with three points: a supposed inconsistency with the national accounts, the "inexplicable" nature of certain operational problems in GAESA companies if they had so much liquidity, and the interpretation of the balance sheets according to Cuban accounting standards.
Inconsistencies and contradictions
The first point made by Marill turned out to be an exercise in comparison, where he mixed incomparable magnitudes. He claimed that the net sales in foreign currency reported for 2023—over 17 billion dollars—would amount to 70% of the GDP in dollars and would be significantly higher than the total exports of the country.
However, it overlooked the fact that GAESA is not just an exporting player: it controls dollarized internal sectors (tourism, remittances, currency retail, telecommunications) that generate revenue outside of foreign trade statistics. In other words, it compared apples to oranges to discredit the figure revealed by the Herald.
In his second point, he presented as "evidence" against the accuracy of the data the deterioration of the tourist offerings and the shortages in GAESA stores, asserting that having liquidity necessarily implies reinvesting in quality or inventory.
In this regard, it deliberately ignored that the investment priorities of an opaque and politicized conglomerate may not align with classic business logic: the accumulation of reserves for strategic or political objectives is perfectly compatible with the deterioration of consumer services.
His third argument relied on an accounting technicality: according to Cuban regulations, dollar figures on a balance sheet are expressed at the official exchange rate in Cuban pesos, which would drastically reduce the actual amount. "18 billion in sales in dollars on a Cuban financial statement is practically around 750 million dollars," he asserted.
But this argument overlooks the fact that the Herald cited figures in dollars as they appear in the leaked documents, and that the internal conversion for accounting purposes does not alter the magnitude of the actual balances in foreign currency.
Fallacies and omissions
In his entire text, Marill avoided a key approach: he did not provide evidence to disprove the leaked documents. His criticisms were based on assumptions and an implicit defense of the institutional opacity that prevents citizens from accessing primary information.
Marill accused other economists of not conducting a "minimum critical analysis," yet he himself started from the unproven premise that the figures cannot be true.
Moreover, he fell into a fallacy of political motivation: he reduced the allegations against GAESA to a "black legend" designed to divide the "Cuban left" (whatever that may be) and benefit the "counterrevolution," shifting the debate from economic grounds to ideological ones, seeking to disqualify based on origin rather than refute with data.
The role of the subordinate
As a MEP official, Marill wrote from a position of subordination within the state structure that shields GAESA from any scrutiny. He did not question the lack of audits, the absence of accountability, nor the fact—publicly verifiable—that the military conglomerate operates strategic sectors without civilian oversight.
His defense of the statu quo is not surprising: the regime uses technicians and specialists as rhetorical pawns to legitimize decisions and realities that do not allow for open debate.
In practice, their intervention served the political function of shielding GAESA from international pressure and internal criticism, reframing the discussion as an external attack rather than a denunciation of opacity and concentration of resources.
Repeated strategy and calculated delegation
Marill's post is not an isolated incident. It is part of an unofficial and fragmented response in which the regime has opted to delegate to secondary officials what, given the magnitude of the allegation, should have been addressed by its top leaders.
The same happened with Rodney González Maestrey, director of Legal Affairs and Analysis at MINREX, who responded not to the Miami Herald, but to independent journalist Mario J. Pentón, who had commented on the investigation, diverting the discussion towards personal attacks and narratives about the embargo.
In both cases, the structure of the message has been identical:
- They neither deny nor confirm the leaked data.
- The coherence or motivation of the complaint is being questioned.
- An ideological element is introduced ("attack from the far right" or "counter-revolutionary campaign") to discredit the sources.
- Any reference to GAESA's obligation to account to the public or explain the use of its reserves is evaded.
This pattern reveals a deliberate strategy of shielding: to prevent figures such as Miguel Díaz-Canel, Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Manuel Marrero Cruz, or the highest military commanders from being directly linked to a response that, due to a lack of transparency, they could not support with verifiable data, and that would expose the web of corruption surrounding the core of power of the Castro regime.
A network of subordinate spokespersons—technical officials, advisors, and mid-level managers—is activated in their place to fill the discursive space and sow doubts. With this tactic, the regime buys time, reduces the political cost of possible contradictions, and maintains silence at the top while the official narrative is reconfigured.
But it also highlights the lack of will and arguments to address the core of the issue: that a military conglomerate manages billions of dollars without civilian oversight, in a country plunged into a humanitarian crisis.
The implicit message is clear: opacity is state policy, and the defense of GAESA is a line that, for the moment, top leaders prefer not to cross in public. To avoid looking foolish, the regime prefers to move its pawns.
Filed under: